F1 active suspension

[RideRate]

I say bring back all active suspensions and all driver aids. Slow down cars with hard parts and let the technology thrive. To me F1 is about the cars and the tech, not the drivers. All the other series are more spec and about the racing and drivers. I like both, but what makes F1 the best is the tech. What makes NASCAR fun is the bump drafting and short tracks. Just my opinion.

[Pingguest]

This morning I was reading about electronic stability control systems (ESC/ESP) and suddenly it got to my mind, that active suspension could be some sort of toned electronic stability control system. The system actively reacts on roll and pitch, actively helping the driver if he drivers too fast and needs to correct.
Now, if a racing series wants to ban electronic stability control, is it inevitable that active suspensions must thrown out the window as well or do I misunderstand anything?

[WhiteBlue]

Now, if a racing series wants to ban electronic stability control, is it inevitable that active suspensions must thrown out the window as well or do I misunderstand anything?

I do not agree. ESC is about the angular velocity and torque of the wheels under power and acceleration. Active suspension is about attitude and ride hight. There is a small overlap but you can clearly divide the two technologies by the use of the sensors.

In a controlled environment of the F1 SECU you can ban all ESC effects from the active suspension program. This means you can be more liberal in terms of active ride hight and attitude control. You can exploit the ground effect much more efficiently if it suits the general strategy of the rule making. And this is the core of the issue.

In a green sport approach you always strive to minimize the power and energy need to achieve a certain performance. Active suspension can make a big contribution to this. More downforce would come from ground effect and drag would be reduced.

This approach can be exploited if the desirable performance is limited by other means. Preferably that would be done by limiting fuel consumption and downforce by suitable rules. Under those conditions I would be all for it. I would even allow the use of tunnels to achieve a better distribution of floor generated downforce. The current floor configuration is biased towards the rear in terms of downforce generation. This could be alleviated by tunnels.

[bhallg2k]

And an active suspension can also be something as easy as magnetorheological dampers.

I think things in F1 have a tendency to get more complicated than they need to be due to the often schizophrenic timing of various components being introduced and others being banned. After a few years of being pulled in many different directions for many different reasons, F1 cars just sort of stop making sense, if that makes any sense.

I guess all of this is to say that it's entirely possible to have one thing without having the other.

[Pingguest]

Now, if a racing series wants to ban electronic stability control, is it inevitable that active suspensions must thrown out the window as well or do I misunderstand anything?

I do not agree. ESC is about the angular velocity and torque of the wheels under power and acceleration. Active suspension is about attitude and ride hight. There is a small overlap but you can clearly divide the two technologies by the use of the sensors.

In a controlled environment of the F1 SECU you can ban all ESC effects from the active suspension program. This means you can be more liberal in terms of active ride hight and attitude control.

Just as I thought: there is an overlap, albeit a small one. Just as with the active/electronic differentials currently used in Formula 1.

In past you have advocated Formula 1 to adopt regulations that would make the series more (road) relevant. I agree with that, although it raises a number of fundamental issues.
One of those is the existence and necessity[1] of standardized electronics, which were introduced in order to enforce the ban on traction control (hereafter: TC), engine braking and variable differential locking. That regulation severely limits the teams' and their manufactures' room for innovation. For example, even with physically unregulated kinetic energy recovery systems (hereafter: KERS) teams are forced to use those technologies in ways manufactures would not use it in their road cars. In terms of (road car) relevancy a lot of potential has therefore been lost, due to its force application. And one could argue that with KERS being unlimited physically and in application, there would still be no TC and anti-lock braking systems (hereafter: ABS): just as with continuously variable transmissions, KERS makes those systems simply unnecessary. If that outcome makes certain technologies or applications undesirable, do we oppose driver aids or the inevitable consequences of innovation then? This concerns the very nature and the fundamental principles of Formula 1. If Formula 1 wants to stay what it thinks to be the ultimate drivers' challenge, a lot of Formula 1's potential in terms of relevancy will be lost.
However, if it will be decided to allow innovation a re-legalisation of driver aids becomes inevitable. That is not necessarily a nightmare, I think. If ineffective tyres are introduced - such as all-weather tyres that need to last the entire race distance - would not the driver aids be designed to work moderately?

[1] For many years in the WTCC the FIA seems to be able to enforce the ban on driver aids without standardized electronics.

[Ferrari_Ivan]

I think that the form1 needs more "pilots" and less "electronic". the fascination of electronics and technological progress must be put aside. if we make the car more difficult to drive, we will see the skill of the drivers on the track and a magnificent spectacle.

active suspension is a brilliant idea. the problem is that the cars make it easier to drive. if all have the same type of active suspension could, however, ....
is a big problem!

[WhiteBlue]

if we make the car more difficult to drive, we will see the skill of the drivers on the track and a magnificent spectacle.

active suspension is a brilliant idea. the problem is that the cars make it easier to drive. if all have the same type of active suspension could, however, ....
is a big problem!

I do not entirely agree. F1 cars will always be difficult to drive at the highest possible performance level.

I do agree with the ban of traction control and anti lock breaks. As I have said before it has practically no bearing on active suspension. All you get is an optimum of ground effect and more traction due to more stability. The torque at the wheel is still controlled by the driver as long as we have the SECU. And in my opinion this must remain a firm feature of F1 regulations.

The active exhaust blowing shows that teams can still develop clever electronics with a SECU in place. But we need a very sharp eye of the FiA on the ABS, TC and launch control technologies to avoid those. From 2014 we will also have full dual torque mode of the MGUK and that would be impossible to police without SECU.

[richard_leeds]

WB - Restoring ground effect will mean drivers will never need to lift off the throttle on fast bends, every car will be flat out through ever fats bend.

I'd rather fast corners were challenging to divers. Some will dare to go full throttle, others will lift off a little bit.

[bhallg2k]

I might be making this up, but wasn't (more) ground effect downforce recently proposed and quickly rejected by the teams?

[Pingguest]

The active exhaust blowing shows that teams can still develop clever electronics with a SECU in place.

It was just a matter of not disallowing it. As Adrian Newey pointed out: from 2012 the engine maps controlling stability and allowing exhaust gases to be blown through the diffuser will be banned and nothing will come in place.

But we need a very sharp eye of the FiA on the ABS, TC and launch control technologies to avoid those. From 2014 we will also have full dual torque mode of the MGUK and that would be impossible to police without SECU.

That sounds like the FIA determining the car set-ups then.

[Ferrari_Ivan]

if we make the car more difficult to drive, we will see the skill of the drivers on the track and a magnificent spectacle.

active suspension is a brilliant idea. the problem is that the cars make it easier to drive. if all have the same type of active suspension could, however, ....
is a big problem!

I do not entirely agree. F1 cars will always be difficult to drive at the highest possible performance level.

I do agree with the ban of traction control and anti lock breaks. As I have said before it has practically no bearing on active suspension. All you get is an optimum of ground effect and more traction due to more stability. The torque at the wheel is still controlled by the driver as long as we have the SECU. And in my opinion this must remain a firm feature of F1 regulations.

The active exhaust blowing shows that teams can still develop clever electronics with a SECU in place. But we need a very sharp eye of the FiA on the ABS, TC and launch control technologies to avoid those. From 2014 we will also have full dual torque mode of the MGUK and that would be impossible to police without SECU.

okay. drive an F1 car is difficult. I think if you limit the electronics, the level of difficulty becomes even greater. electronics makes it relatively "easy" to drive the cars. I do not know if I can explain.

to drive an F1 car is one of the hardest things to do. a normal person can not tell the difference between a car with a lot of electronics that helps, and a machine with little electronic. a pilot but can also understand the presence or not of a minimum of electronic assistance. This can make it a little '"easier" driving these cars to the limit.

reasoning is a bit general, however, in my opinion correct.

[jenkF1]

I might be making this up, but wasn't (more) ground effect downforce recently proposed and quickly rejected by the teams?

Yes, it was proposed recently and I really supported it - it would be in conjunction with removing a lot of over body downforce (i.e wings) so the aim would be to have similar downforce levels.

The problem is the front wing is the single most important component on the cars right now, and also the component that gets most affected by the 'dirty air' of the car in front - meaning overtaking is difficult

But, the teams rejected the proposal, stating it would mean a fundemental redesign of the cars costing a lot of money. A real shame if you ask me...